Anambra Funds Controversy: Otti Says Obi Left Money Behind, Recalls Role as Diamond Bank CEO

Anambra Funds Controversy: Otti Says Obi Left Money Behind, Recalls Role as Diamond Bank CEO

Abia State Governor, Dr. Alex Otti, has again emerged as a central figure in the renewed controversy over the financial position of Anambra State at the end of Peter Obi’s tenure as governor, citing his first-hand involvement as Chief Executive Officer of Diamond Bank at the time.

The controversy centres on Obi’s long-standing claim that he left substantial cash and investments for the Anambra State Government when he left office in 2014, a position that has faced renewed scrutiny from political opponents and officials associated with the current Anambra administration.

The interview introducing Otti’s comments specifically raised the controversy surrounding Obi’s financial handover and Otti’s role as the Diamond Bank CEO who had knowledge of some of the transactions.

Otti has previously said publicly that Obi did, in fact, leave significant funds behind.

Speaking at a Labour Party stakeholders’ meeting in Enugu in December 2022, Otti said Obi left at least $155 million in investments for the state and that he was directly involved in structuring part of the transactions while serving as Diamond Bank CEO.

According to Otti, Obi had initially wanted the money held in cash, but the bank advised that the funds be invested instead. He said the money was subsequently converted and placed in Eurobonds and Tier-2 capital instruments in financial institutions.

The issue returned to public attention in September 2026 amid fresh arguments over whether Obi left Anambra with substantial savings or with liabilities that complicated the picture of the state’s financial position.

Obi himself has recently defended his account, saying that when he left office, Anambra had dollar-denominated investments and naira balances across Diamond Bank, Fidelity Bank and Access Bank.

He said the investments included $50 million in each of the three banks, alongside naira balances, and challenged critics to independently verify the records.

Otti’s earlier testimony is significant because he was not merely commenting as a political ally; he said he was directly involved in the banking process connected to the funds.

He previously stated that some of the investments had maturity dates extending beyond Obi’s tenure, meaning some of the money was not immediately available for withdrawal when Obi left office.

However, the broader controversy is more complicated than the question of whether investments existed.

Critics of Obi’s financial record, including figures associated with the current Anambra administration, have argued that the state also had outstanding liabilities, including contractor obligations and external debts. Obi’s supporters, on the other hand, argue that the existence of those liabilities does not invalidate the claim that substantial cash and investments were left behind.

Recent reporting has similarly framed the dispute as one involving both assets and liabilities, rather than a simple question of whether money existed.

Otti’s testimony therefore speaks directly to one part of the debate: the existence of the investments.

His account does not, by itself, resolve every question surrounding Anambra’s total financial position in 2014, including the scale and nature of outstanding obligations at the time.

But his former position as Diamond Bank CEO gives his account particular weight in relation to the specific funds and investments handled through the banking system.

The controversy has also acquired wider political significance because Obi remains a major national opposition figure ahead of the 2027 election cycle, while Otti is one of the country’s most prominent governors associated with the Labour Party tradition.

As the debate continues, the key distinction remains between two separate questions: whether Obi left substantial investments behind, and what Anambra State’s overall net financial position was when he handed over power.

On the first question, Otti has been clear: based on his involvement in the transactions, the money and investments existed.